[council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for FY09

[Avri Doria]

Hi,

As a recommendation for a way to proceed for Cairo only - allowing a  
general discussion of principles and alignment with a revamped GSNO  
structure for later, how about:

-  Each Constituency suggests a prioritized list of names (0-3).  The  
first name, if any, of each of the list is guaranteed and the council  
will discuss how to distribute the 4 remaining spots amount the other  
names that may be put forward.

-- As an additional element, I would suggest that on names 2-3 on the  
list, the constituency indicate whether there is a special reason or  
need for including the name.

-- I suggest that the names 2-3 on the list not be limited to council  
member but can include WG chairs if the constituency so recommends.

- I suggest that each constituency submit its list to the council  
email list by Tuesday 26 Aug.

- I also suggest that we schedule a special meeting for Thursday 29  
Aug to finalize any issues.  I understand that it may not be possible  
for all members to attend then, but as long as there is at least one  
member, all is better, from each constituency empowered to speak for  
their constituency, I am hoping we can reach agreement. Also, I  
understand that staff may be otherwise involved in this time slot as  
they may have prior commitments, but in this case I think that is a  
secondary consideration to figuring out how to handle this situation  
for Cairo in an agreeable manner.

- In the meantime we make sure we have answers to all questions that  
may be critical to making our decisions in time for making  
reservations for Cairo.


thanks

a.


On 19 Aug 2008, at 15:06, Tim Ruiz wrote:

>
> An even split for Cairo may make sense. But WG efforts *are* an  
> intregal
> part of the policy process, and the goal of the funding is to broaden
> participation in policy processes. So why wouldn't the WGs fall under
> that?
>
> My thinking was that as we move more fully to the WG model, finding  
> good
> WG Chairs will be a challenge. The prospect of travel funding for  
> ICANN
> meetings may prove to be an incentive. If we want some rules around
> that, that would make sense - not for Chairs who are also Councilors,
> not for Chairs who represent a constituency member, or whatever.
>
> And for the record, I would not accept travel assistance for myself.
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
> FY09
> From: Robin Gross <robin at ipjustice.org>
> Date: Tue, August 19, 2008 1:47 pm
> To: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes at verisign.com>
> Cc: Council GNSO <council at gnso.icann.org>
>
> No one has said Councilors are more important.
>
>
> It was my understanding that we weren't funding "people" per se, but
> specific "roles" within the ICANN policy development process.  If you
> want to change it so we are funding the people that we think are
> contributing the most, that is another story, and we can certainly  
> have
> that conversation.   But we should be clear what we are doing - right
> now it just looks like a "grab bag" has opened up.
>
>
> Robin
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
>
> I think we have to be careful about thinking of ourselves as more
> important as Councilors than other GNSO members.  If someone is  
> devoting
> considerable time to GNSO work regardless whether they are on the
> Council or not we should recognize that and help to meet their travel
> needs if possible.
>
> Chuck
>
> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org 
> ]
> On Behalf Of Robin Gross
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 2:08 PM
> To: Greg Ruth
> Cc: Council GNSO
> Subject: Re: [council] Revised Community Travel Support Procedure for
> FY09
>
>
>
> I agree with Greg.  What began as a process to ensure councilors could
> participate at council meetings has turned into something else  
> entirely.
>
>
> Robin
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 19, 2008, at 10:50 AM, Greg Ruth wrote:
>
> Basically, I disagree with the notion that some of the travel funding
> should be allocated to constituencies and some should be earmarked to
> support WG chairs.  I believe the original intent was not to  
> progress WG
> efforts, but rather to make sure that all stakeholders  
> (constituencies)
> have an *equal* opportunity to participate.  (I would think that a
> responsible WG chair should have been sure of his/her ability to
> participate *before* accepting the position.)  Therefore, I am in  
> favor
> of dividing the funding more or less equally among the consituencies  
> and
> letting each decide how it can best support representation at ICANN
> meetings.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> IP JUSTICE
> Robin Gross, Executive Director
> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA  94117  USA
> p: +1-415-553-6261    f: +1-415-462-6451
> w: http://www.ipjustice.org     e: robin at ipjustice.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>